Shin, you really make atheists cry because of the stupidity in the world. Do you really believe that creationist crap? In spite of all the scientific evidence? Although every creationist argument can be refuted at once? I don´t know what there is to wonder....

Logged

If 50 million people say a foolish thing it´s still a foolish thing (Bertrand Russel)

^ Well, yes you could... but then again, it would just show the discrimination that exists against theists.

Shin, I've told you this now across three religious forums - You have to actually put some of your own words into things, present some of your own ideas and not just copy-paste stuff. For instance, I am sure many on this forum (myself included) would love to talk to you about evolution and creationism, but this kind of post simply isnt a good place to start.

Logged

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

And we have more videos than you. Plus we have things like research, exploration, discovery and proof. We can explain details and successfully predict what new evidence might be found to further support the idea of evolution. We have years of study, years of findings, years of peer-reviewed research.

^ Aye. Just pick one or two things that you find the weakest in evolution, and talk about them. Evolution is a huge concept, that takes years of study. I dont think anyone is expecting you to attempt to refute the entire thing in a single post.

Logged

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

Naturally, most people who believe in creationism want to attempt to discredit evolution because of the facile belief that by pointing out flaws in the theory, they'll get people to 'disbelieve' it. The actual fact of the matter is that there is hard evidence which supports the current theory of evolution, so attempts to proselytize against evolution and in favor of whatever religious belief you subscribe to aren't very effective when directed at people who are knowledgeable about the subject. No doubt there's a lot of people who aren't, but reality isn't dependent on belief, so it won't work.

It would be far more effective to incorporate scientific knowledge into religious beliefs than to waste time with this posturing based on literal interpretations of ancient texts, especially creation mythology made up by people who weren't around to see it in the first place.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

SHIN, just a suggestion... Links are great, but make your own arguments. When you can do that you show confidence in your understanding of the ideas you are trying to get other people to accept.

Not to mention that no one is going to read the links posted. Why should we waste our time reading pages on this sites, sites which many of us think are unbiased anyways.

What good is an argument when there are nothing but links? One, we're not arguing with Shin but the authors of this pages, and two there is just too much content there to argue against.

Shin, a word of advice. As said, make your own argument but use content from those sites to support your argument. The forum has a footnote option that you can use.

Have you ever had to write a paper for school. Think of it like that. With all due respect Shin, you haven't given anyone a reason to think you even understand the basics of evolution. Formulate your own thoughts, use those sites as references, and learn from the members here.

Just a suggestion.

-M

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

SHIN, just a suggestion... Links are great, but make your own arguments. When you can do that you show confidence in your understanding of the ideas you are trying to get other people to accept.

Not to mention that no one is going to read the links posted. Why should we waste our time reading pages on this sites, sites which many of us think are unbiased anyways.

What good is an argument when there are nothing but links? One, we're not arguing with Shin but the authors of this pages, and two there is just too much content there to argue against.

Shin, a word of advice. As said, make your own argument but use content from those sites to support your argument. The forum has a footnote option that you can use.

Have you ever had to write a paper for school. Think of it like that. With all due respect Shin, you haven't given anyone a reason to think you even understand the basics of evolution. Formulate your own thoughts, use those sites as references, and learn from the members here.

Just a suggestion.

-M

Thx Em. Trying to get better. It will take some time though... Please bear with me. At least I'm not a troll anymore

Logged

Presuppositionalism wins everytime

Nietzsche : "Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."

Hey there everyone, new member here. Shin, I was wondering, when you say creationism do you mean fundamendalist (i.e. God created the universe as is around 6000 years ago) or not so fundamentalist (God created the big bang)? Just for my own clarity.

Logged

"Science changes it's views based on what's observed; Religion ignores the facts so that faith may be preserved."

Shame. I had a brainwave the other month, you see, and I wanted to ask the fundamentalists this: If our universe is only 6000 years old, how do we see stars that are more than 6000 light years away? Are they willing to disprove the speed of light? Shouldn't we be seeing a new star every other day? And I know that the goalposts would then be shifted, as in "GOD MADE THE LIGHT FROM THOSE DISTANT STARS REACH US EARLY PRAISE JEEBERS!!1!" But that's ok, my goal is to make a person admit to themselves that they are making stuff up.

Logged

"Science changes it's views based on what's observed; Religion ignores the facts so that faith may be preserved."

The usual reply is that the light of those stars was created, en route towards us. That's the sort of thing you get when one's standard of evidence is only limited by one's imagination. Have you perchance ever read Stranger in a strange land?There's a passage there where an astrologist convinces herself, through the use of 'a tonic', ie booze, that her predictions are true. I figure most theists go thorugh much the same process (either with or without the aforementioned tonic). So, getting one to admit they're making stuff up ... don't hold your breath.

Logged

2 Interwebs 7:42And in the seventh year, thou shalt cast out the Nam from thine assembly for he haveth a potty mouth.

Looks like being sent to the Isolation Tank at ATT finally knocked some sense into shin about how to reply in a more grown up manner. I wonder how long that will last.

Logged

"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne

Shame. I had a brainwave the other month, you see, and I wanted to ask the fundamentalists this: If our universe is only 6000 years old, how do we see stars that are more than 6000 light years away? Are they willing to disprove the speed of light? Shouldn't we be seeing a new star every other day? And I know that the goalposts would then be shifted, as in "GOD MADE THE LIGHT FROM THOSE DISTANT STARS REACH US EARLY PRAISE JEEBERS!!1!" But that's ok, my goal is to make a person admit to themselves that they are making stuff up.

There is an astrophysicist Jason Lisle who proposes that the speed of light as it approaches the observer is infinite, yet as it travels away from an observer is actually 150, 000 km/s. He says that we are actually observing star that are light years away, as they are NOW. Look up anisotropic synchrony convention.

Jet, an adult now has to approve all of SHIN's posts. He should have parents for that, but, instead, he has us.

One thing I meant to tell the wacky bastard before his banishing is that the only way he's been making atheists cry since 1991 is if he was born in 1991 and his parents are atheists. Shinji boy, if you're reading this, please do your poor folks a favor and get your own place already!

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

The usual reply is that the light of those stars was created, en route towards us.....

Indeed - but what they seldom go on to address is WHY their god would do that? Because doing such a thing means that he was specifically creating the universe in a way that makes it look as if he didn't.....in other words, trying deliberately to trap people into thinking he does not exist. Some kind of faith test, it seems.....nice one, god. Trust your creation, why dontcha?

But even THAT makes no sense....because all the stars were created BEFORE he had even brought mankind into existence.....so the idea of "testing" only works if he had decided before he created them that his creation would fall from grace. Which means he knew before creating man that he would create man with flaws, and the potential for sin and danation.